One of the oddities of Feser's response to me is the following claim:
Now, to take the second point first, lots of classical theists are not Thomists. And I imagine there are lots of people who might find it worthwhile inquiring whether classical theism and ID theory are compatible whether or not they are classical theists, or Thomists, or ID theorists for that matter. For knowing how various ideas cohere or fail to cohere with one another is part of the philosophical task. So, surely it can be “philosophically enlightening” to consider the arguments of those who hold that classical theism and ID theory are incompatible, no?
But why imagine that ID theory is incompatible with classical theism? Although ID theory by no means entails classical theism, ID theory is compatible with a range a theisms. It's even compatible with panspermia. About the only thing that's not compatible with ID theory is deism or evolutionary deism.
What is there about ID theory that prevents an ID theorist from subscribing to classical theism, viz. divine aseity, timelessness, impassibility, simplicity, or creation ex nihilo?
For instance, ID-theorist Jay Richards published a monograph defending classical theism: The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Simplicity, and Immutability (IVP 2003).
But why imagine that ID theory is incompatible with classical theism?
ReplyDeleteI believe the very, very short answser to that is that for the classical theist God creates by combining an essence with existence in a single act of creation. That essence is the reason for the capacities that a natural substance has.
Steve M
i) How is that a characterization of classical theism in general, rather than a particular version thereof? Remember, Feser specifically distinguished between classical theism in general and Thomism in particular.
Deleteii) More to the point, even if we accept your definition, how does that conflict with the definition of ID theory? For instance:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/
i) How is that a characterization of classical theism in general, rather than a particular version thereof?
DeleteIt's a characterization of the classical theistic notion of creation. I'm not aware of another notion of creation that would be held by a classical theist. Do have some examples of classical theists that believe otherwise about creation?
ii) More to the point, even if we accept your definition, how does that conflict with the definition of ID theory?
If all that ID theory is saying about creation is what I said, then it doesn't conflict. We can all admit that a particular feature of organism X was created in potency when God gave the essence of X existence which follows from the metaphysical principles held by classical theists.
Do you believe that God creates certain features of an organism separately, and in addition to, creating the essence of that organism? Do you know of anyone that maintains classical theistic metaphysical principles and does?
Seems to me that you're using Thomistic categories, viz. " X was created in potency when God gave the essence of X existence."
DeleteHow is that equivalent to classical theism in general?
"Do you believe that God creates certain features of an organism separately, and in addition to, creating the essence of that organism?"
DeleteWhat I happen to believe is a red herring. The question at issue is the alleged incompatibility of ID theory with classical theism.
"But why imagine that ID theory is incompatible with classical theism?"
ReplyDeleteBriefly, in Feser's view, classical theism rules out God literally having purposes or intentions, or performing intentional actions. See, e.g. http://trinities.org/blog/archives/5159
i) Is that a defining feature of classical theism in general, or Feser's particular brand?
Deleteii) Likewise, are Feser's defenders getting their definitions of ID theory from ID theorists, or from Feser?